Why turn his money into two times the scratch for zero production? If you just cut him, you would have $15 million more in cap space right now while still solving the Curry-Ellis problem.

Bogut is a top Center and that's something the team has not had in over thirty years. He was traded for while injured, but that's the only way the team would have gotten him. The chances of Bogut coming back and contributing real well are higher than him not.

You can't just cut a player like Monta, you have to trade him. The trade was as good as it could have been in that situation. The team got to lose games, thus getting Barnes in the draft instead of having to give the draft pick to Utah and Klay got to start and get alot of minutes, showing he is a good starting SG. It worked well in almost every way.

migya wrote:The chances of Bogut coming back and contributing real well are higher than him not.

This is where my questioning the results of this trade comes in.

We're all treating Bogut's return as if it's a sure thing and it's not. And even though his past injuries are not and have never been chronic, for whatever reason, THIS one is. His ankle is a chronic problem; it swells sporadically, it's unpredictably sore, he thought he had it at 100% and experienced a full-on regression after barely a handful of games... However you slice it, this ankle has been a major problem for Bogut.

And none of us need a history lesson in centers with chronic-foot injuries that kill careers, do we? The wheel is the kiss of death to an NBA big, claiming the careers of Shaquille O'Neal, Yao Ming, Bill Walton, Greg Oden, Sam Bowie, Ralph Sampson, and a slew of others. It's not delusional to claim that Bogut is in danger, the likes of which are career-threatening.

migya wrote:The chances of Bogut coming back and contributing real well are higher than him not.

This is where my questioning the results of this trade comes in.

We're all treating Bogut's return as if it's a sure thing and it's not. And even though his past injuries are not and have never been chronic, for whatever reason, THIS one is. His ankle is a chronic problem; it swells sporadically, it's unpredictably sore, he thought he had it at 100% and experienced a full-on regression after barely a handful of games... However you slice it, this ankle has been a major problem for Bogut.

And none of us need a history lesson in centers with chronic-foot injuries that kill careers, do we? The wheel is the kiss of death to an NBA big, claiming the careers of Shaquille O'Neal, Yao Ming, Bill Walton, Greg Oden, Sam Bowie, Ralph Sampson, and a slew of others. It's not delusional to claim that Bogut is in danger, the likes of which are career-threatening.

And if he can't fully recover... This trade is not a win.

I agree. I am looking at this trade as we gave up Ellis and Udoh for Richard Jefferson and less cap space.... until Bogut gets back and proves me wrong, I feel we lost in that trade.

If the trade makes you better for the future and improves win curvature you can't say we lost. It's a rudimentary to say we lost because Bogut hasn't played because it ignores the actual outcome and the actual potential of Bogut playing. If you can get a player like Bogut, you have to go for it, and the risk is well worth it. You can't consider this a lost trade.

Blackfoot wrote:If the trade makes you better for the future and improves win curvature you can't say we lost. It's a rudimentary to say we lost because Bogut hasn't played because it ignores the actual outcome and the actual potential of Bogut playing. If you can get a player like Bogut, you have to go for it, and the risk is well worth it. You can't consider this a lost trade.

I agree you have to go for it. But you cannot count potential in evauluating a trade. It is like playing poker, you may have a good hand on the floop so you go for it, but then on the turn and the river you get screwed. You had the potential of winning but it didn't happen. You still go for it, but it isn't a good trade until you find out the final outcome.

So as of now, the trade looks bad, but if Bogut proves he can come back healthy, then it will be a good trade. Either way, I think they needed to make the trade.

Up to date there is nothing that trade did that has made us better or improved our win curvature. Our improved record comes the players we had playing better, a full year of coaching staff in place, the rookies, and the FA coming in.

Blackfoot wrote:If the trade makes you better for the future and improves win curvature you can't say we lost. It's a rudimentary to say we lost because Bogut hasn't played because it ignores the actual outcome and the actual potential of Bogut playing. If you can get a player like Bogut, you have to go for it, and the risk is well worth it. You can't consider this a lost trade.

I agree you have to go for it. But you cannot count potential in evauluating a trade. It is like playing poker, you may have a good hand on the floop so you go for it, but then on the turn and the river you get screwed. You had the potential of winning but it didn't happen. You still go for it, but it isn't a good trade until you find out the final outcome.

So as of now, the trade looks bad, but if Bogut proves he can come back healthy, then it will be a good trade. Either way, I think they needed to make the trade.

Up to date there is nothing that trade did that has made us better or improved our win curvature. Our improved record comes the players we had playing better, a full year of coaching staff in place, the rookies, and the FA coming in.

Blackfoot wrote:If the trade makes you better for the future and improves win curvature you can't say we lost. It's a rudimentary to say we lost because Bogut hasn't played because it ignores the actual outcome and the actual potential of Bogut playing. If you can get a player like Bogut, you have to go for it, and the risk is well worth it. You can't consider this a lost trade.

I agree you have to go for it. But you cannot count potential in evauluating a trade. It is like playing poker, you may have a good hand on the floop so you go for it, but then on the turn and the river you get screwed. You had the potential of winning but it didn't happen. You still go for it, but it isn't a good trade until you find out the final outcome.

So as of now, the trade looks bad, but if Bogut proves he can come back healthy, then it will be a good trade. Either way, I think they needed to make the trade.

Up to date there is nothing that trade did that has made us better or improved our win curvature. Our improved record comes the players we had playing better, a full year of coaching staff in place, the rookies, and the FA coming in.

Yes there is, check my Micheal Young analogy.

You mean addition by subtraction. My counter agrument to that would be after we subtracted Ellis and Udoh, our team didn't get better. It tanked. In my opinion I think what makes us better is not the players from the trade, or the absence of certain players but again, having curry healthy, Lee playing better D, the rookies playing a role, the FA additions and most of all, the coaching staff having time to implement a better plan.

Curry was out for the season and we had Jenkins, Tyler, Jefferson all playing. It certainly did not mean addition by subtraction was not working. Losing Ellis who is posting negative offensive value and defensive value is by definition addition by subtraction. Using last year to say it was not addition by subtraction is a bad way to look at it.

Basically: Having other factors to as why we were losing does not mean it wasn't addition by subtraction. Even when Lee makes his improvements on defense with Ellis here, than we'd still be winning less games with Ellis.

migya wrote:The chances of Bogut coming back and contributing real well are higher than him not.

This is where my questioning the results of this trade comes in.

We're all treating Bogut's return as if it's a sure thing and it's not. And even though his past injuries are not and have never been chronic, for whatever reason, THIS one is. His ankle is a chronic problem; it swells sporadically, it's unpredictably sore, he thought he had it at 100% and experienced a full-on regression after barely a handful of games... However you slice it, this ankle has been a major problem for Bogut.

And none of us need a history lesson in centers with chronic-foot injuries that kill careers, do we? The wheel is the kiss of death to an NBA big, claiming the careers of Shaquille O'Neal, Yao Ming, Bill Walton, Greg Oden, Sam Bowie, Ralph Sampson, and a slew of others. It's not delusional to claim that Bogut is in danger, the likes of which are career-threatening.

And if he can't fully recover... This trade is not a win.

Bogut's ankle is not a chronic problem. He broke it and has not fully recovered from it yet. Curry's ankle is a better example of a chronic condition that probably results from his running mechanics, but even now he has shown that he has recovered from it. Prior to the freak accident that broke his ankle, Bogut had no prior history of any ankle sprains, fractures, or injury in general so calling it a chronic condition is a little naive.

He admitted himself that he rushed back his return, so his ankle didn't regress from an healthy ankle. We have to give him an opportunity to be 100% before we evaluate anything in terms of progression, regression, and overall basketball performance. I probably don't need to remind anyone how bad he broke his ankle. Just go back and watch it and it might give you some perspective. Just have some patience and give him a little more time.

I hear you, 8th, and I'll respond to your comments when I get a little more time, but I wanna address one thing:

Blackfoot, my friend, your argument keeps going back to the Warriors playing better this year compared to last, as if that's an automatic QED, but that's a straw man argument. Nobody is arguing that the Warriors have improved drastically since last season. But with all due respect, your argument could be inserted for ANYTHING that's happened in the past year (ie, "the Warriors are playing far better after moving their D-League team to Santa Cruz, therefore you MUST admit that the transition of D-League locations has worked out for the best because the team is winning). The point is that the Warriors' improved level of play has nothing to do with anything that we recieved in the trade, so it's a rhetorical fallacy to claim that just because they have drastically improved, the trade is a win. It's a false dichotomy. The team has improved because Mark Jackson has gotten them to commit to defense, it's because Steph Curry is healthy, it's because of free agent studs Landry and Jack. It's NOT because of Andrew Bogut or Richard Jefferson. I believe you're dodging the meat of the issue by falling back on the team record.

To recap: nobody is arguing that the team has improved, nobody is arguing that Ellis needed to be dealt, nobody is arguing that if Bogut plays consistently the deal immediately pays off. The issue at hand is the collection of assets we recieved in the trade AS IT STANDS TODAY.

With all due respect, I cannot agree with the assessment that Richard Jefferson's dying spark of a career and less than 75 minutes of Andrew Bogut have warranted the enormous hike in salary that limited our ability to peruse a center that would actually play. The TRADE is a loss for now, even if the season has been a revelation. The improvements we've seen are not related to the trade.

32 wrote:I hear you, 8th, and I'll respond to your comments when I get a little more time, but I wanna address one thing:

Blackfoot, my friend, your argument keeps going back to the Warriors playing better this year compared to last, as if that's an automatic QED, but that's a straw man argument. Nobody is arguing that the Warriors have improved drastically since last season. But with all due respect, your argument could be inserted for ANYTHING that's happened in the past year (ie, "the Warriors are playing far better after moving their D-League team to Santa Cruz, therefore you MUST admit that the transition of D-League locations has worked out for the best because the team is winning). The point is that the Warriors' improved level of play has nothing to do with anything that we recieved in the trade, so it's a rhetorical fallacy to claim that just because they have drastically improved, the trade is a win. It's a false dichotomy. The team has improved because Mark Jackson has gotten them to commit to defense, it's because Steph Curry is healthy, it's because of free agent studs Landry and Jack. It's NOT because of Andrew Bogut or Richard Jefferson. I believe you're dodging the meat of the issue by falling back on the team record.

To recap: nobody is arguing that the team has improved, nobody is arguing that Ellis needed to be dealt, nobody is arguing that if Bogut plays consistently the deal immediately pays off. The issue at hand is the collection of assets we recieved in the trade AS IT STANDS TODAY.

With all due respect, I cannot agree with the assessment that Richard Jefferson's dying spark of a career and less than 75 minutes of Andrew Bogut have warranted the enormous hike in salary that limited our ability to peruse a center that would actually play. The TRADE is a loss for now, even if the season has been a revelation. The improvements we've seen are not related to the trade.

If we sucked this year it is still addition by subtraction. That doesn't change. That's why I carefully stated it was addition by subtraction last year as well. We still got better play from the shooting guard spot.

I'll give a recent example in this team's history that is similar, as such though not totally, to the current trade of Monta for Bogut -

JRich and small change for Brandon Wright: This trade was horrible, but a few people, on this forum as well as other Warriors fans, thought it was a great trade because it got the team a potentially very good big as well as get Monta the starting SG spot. It worked out quite awful, as BWright was nothing for us ever, left for nothing and Monta, though scoring more, was less efficient, especially as his FG% dropped a mile.

- In the current case, with Bogut missing, the team has won much more, a difference right there from the above example. The team had Klay, who was seen as a possible good replacement for Monta and he has been.

- The team lost alot after the trade of Monta, more because of the use of the likes of Jenkins and Tyler, among others and then Lee also getting injured for the rest of the season. That allowed the team to get Harrison Barnes, a possible future allstar and perfect fit for the team. A big good move for the future as well as the present.

- Far better team play and ball movement. Monta hogged that ball a fair chunk and that was one of the main reasons why the team didn't win much. Curry now has the ball in his hands far more and he is showing that he is definately a top PG right now in the nba.

Not only addition by subtraction, but an overall improvement in a number of areas that has lead to an immediate increase in performance and wins, all without top 5 Center Bogut.